Before we get our tails tied into a knot over the recent Supreme
Court decision on search and seizure, let's be sure we have the basic
issues straight.

The issue before the Court was not whether the seat belt law is good
or bad. It's bad. The majority of the Court explicitly granted that
the state had no legitimate interest in arresting violators of their
seat belt law and the policeman's discretion was sorely abused. The
merits of the law were simply not the issue before the Court. To
judge the Judges, it's necessary to ignore the demerits of the law.

What transpired was that the woman who committed a criminal act in
plain sight of an objective witness refused to agree to appear in
court to answer the charges. The officer had full authority to make a
formal arrest and decided to proceed. The woman was detained to
establish her identity and to execute the formal criminal charges.

Again, we need to ignore the nature of the crime - even the fact that
the arrest was executed by a policeman. What the woman argued to the
Court, and the Court discarded as insupportable, was that the arrest
was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Imagine that the crime
had been destruction of property - say a broken window - and that a
civil arrest had been performed by the owner of the property. We
would properly defend the victim's right to detain the perpetrator
and ensure a civil redress of the grievance. That's all the Court
upheld in it's decision.

The Court's ruling was totally in keeping with the intent of the
Fourth Amendment and is irrefutable on the grounds of common law and
established legal precedent... outside the context.

The problem is that the context - laws written by the legislature,
not the courts - is indefensible. The seat belt law is a victimless
crime with no merit and no "compelling interest" to any state. Had
that been the issue before the Court, the decision may have been
totally different. We cannot fault the Court for failing to decide an
issue that had not been presented as a cause of action.

Let's put the blame for the injustice where it is due: legislators
who propose and support criminalization of innocent and victimless
conduct that is not the proper subject of law. Where are the
libertarian lawyers who will challenge victimless crimes on the
"penumbra" of the Constitutional rights to privacy, autonomy and
individual liberty?

I wrote this during the events in Kosovo but I think it replies to
issues that are current today.

I was fortunate to be able to take as my research seminar in college,
American Strategic History. We not only looked at the outcome of past
strategies but the motives behind them. One refrain seemed to repeat
over and over again, expecially when repeating the mistakes of the
past. The rationale of this refrain simplified is this, "since we are
better people, then by doing the same thing others (others who were
flawed and therefore not as good as us) have unsuccessfully done in
the past, those attempts will be successful."

Recently I have started to that same haunting refrain in the words of
those boosters of the campaign against Kosovo with regards to their
motives.

King William's diatribes constantly use the words, "universal
ideals", "humanitarian effort", "moral imperative" as if by utterring
these words and truly believing them the mistakes made in the past
will not be repeated because of the so-called purity of their cause.
The haughty nature of his military commanders - political generals
and admirals - in regards to this operation because of their moral
superiority to the enemy and the side of "rightness" and "morality".
Dropping virtuous bombs and firing nobel cruise missiles into the
hordes of amoral barbarous Serbs.

This nobel art is being propigated by the purveyors of American
Propanda known as the mass media. For some reason the mass media must
not believe that Americans are capable of thinking along two sides of
an issue and therefore must present only the one and of course,
decent side of an issue. This done so American's can have their
opinions gaudily wrapped in the paper the nobel, virtuous, and
decent.

This really doesn't come as a surprise to me since they been
selecting the issues that American's should care about for decades.
Earlier in my college career (1993) a professor of mine showed me an
article from an "intellectual" magazine, the Utne Reader, regarding
the use of the military for humanitarian purposes. It sems that King
William has taken it upon himself to spread his universal ideals and
concept of morality through the power of a humanitarian military.

While history itself does not repeat (only history professors repeat
themselves), the mistakes of not learning from history litter the
past - unfortunatly that litter is often in the form of human lives,
liberties, and freedoms.

It is ALWAYS the case that the media condenses Supreme Court rulings
into the most provocative - even if irrelevant - aspects of the case.

I think only one commentator on FoxNews mentioned that Mrs. Atwater
had refused to sign the ticket (agreeing to appear in court to answer
the charge), which is common for all "traffic violations" in the
state of California -- and many others. I'm sure Mrs. Atwater had a
good and legitimate case -- but not on Fourth Amendment grounds.

The only way to get a clear assessment of the issue and the case is
to actually read the opinion. CNN is pretty good about providing an
on-line link to the actual ruling, but I depend on a FindLaw service,
which provides prompt and concise summaries as well as a link to the
actual text. If you skip over all the historic citations and
introductory summaries, most decisions only run a few pages.

I've provided the link to the Atwater case below, as well as a link
to the Findlaw email newsletter that is only issued when Supreme
Court rulings are filed.

Bill Westmiller

-----------------
ATWATER v. CITY OF LAGO VISTA, No 99-1408 (U.S.S.C April 24, 2001)
The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor
criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation,
punishable only by a fine.

Has anyone noticed the irony in the current vacation plans of Mr.
Dennis Tito, the so-called 'Space tourist'?

Russia, the former rootstock of communist economic tyranny has
committed that most laissez-faire of acts; selling it's services to
the highest bidder.

At the same time, the former rootstock of economic freedom and
liberty, fought like a demon to prevent this, in raging fear of
losing it's socialist monopoly on space flight.

A second level to the irony, is that Mr. Tito, an American subject,
(I hesitate to use the term citizen anymore), had to leave his
supposedly free homeland and travel to Russia, the land of the second
largest mass genocide in history and the home of the first communist
dictatorship, to enjoy the economic freedom and liberty to take the
vacation he desired and could afford to pay for.

To add even more insanity to this, N.A.S.A., in an action worthy of a
six year old feuding with his brother over their bedroom, has drawn a
line down the middle of the space station and forbidden Mr. Tito from
crossing it. You can just imagine the administrative chin quivering
in anger, the regulatory tears of indignation over the insult to
their territory, the self righteous pout of their bureaucratic lips,
as they scratch the chalk around the walls of the station and say,
'Mine!, Mine!, you can't have it!'.

Perhaps the name of N.A.S.A. should now, finally, be officially
changed to N.A.S.S.A., the 'National Administration of Soviet
Socialist Aerospace'.

NASA, in a fit of childish pique, has decided that Dennis Tito
doesn't deserve to fly in space. Apparently, in the opinion of NASA,
no one has that right, except those members of the government trained
and approved master race, known to the rabble as "astronauts".

Never mind that Mr. Tito paid top dollar for his trip. Never mind
that he's not hurting anything or anyone while he's up there. Never
mind that he, too, went through some weeks of training so that he,
too, would be at least as qualified as, say, an elementary school
teacher. Or a U. S. Senator.

No, he shouldn't go because he (Horrors! The ignominy!) paid for the
trip.

Once upon a time, I wanted to be a part of the space program. Once
upon a time, I watched in wonder as American astronauts orbited the
Earth, walked in space, and then on the Moon. Once upon a time, I sat
glued to my television as three incredibly brave men fought to bring
their damaged ship safely home.

Those days are gone. I see clearly, now, that NASA (and, by
extension, the U. S. Government) regards space as its exclusive
playground, not to be invaded by common folk. And, in looking back at
NASA's monopoly on American space exploration, I see that this
childish attitude has been a long-standing policy, a policy that
tarnishes the glory of former accomplishment.

And now, I can clearly see that NASA's time has passed. Or maybe,
like the childish bully that pretends he owns the playground, NASA's
"time" never really was; perhaps it was merely an illusion, brought
into being and maintained by the force of government at the
unwilling, and frequently unknowing, expense of the taxpayer.

How sad that the eventual human entry into the Final Frontier will be
slowed by the country that, once upon a time, led the way to the
future.

The United States Supreme Court is sometimes referred to as the
"High" Court. In light of their recent "precedent" allowing police to
arrest, handcuff and detain we lowly peasants for something as
trivial as not wearing a seatbelt, I'm now wondering what these black
robed demons are smoking to make them that "High".

How can these "experts"(sic) at law justify this ridiculous position?

Is America trying to emulate Nazi Germany where the Gestapo can
detain and arrest at will for not having your papers? Obviously YES,
according to the Supremes.

Are the "Judges" on the "High" court trying to out-do Stalinist
Russia where the KGB can pull you off the street on a whim and ship
you to a Gulag as an undesireable for not wearing a seatbelt?
Obviously!

There is already a dramatic change occuring in the citizen-police
relationship in this country and this foolish, heavy handed decision
just adds fuel to the fire of discontent. Wearing a seatbelt is a
personal decision, not a police decision.

I suggest that the police of this country focus on real crime, you
know "bad guys" who rape-rob-steal and break things, rather than
handcuffing and arresting people for not wearing a seatbelt.

There is a growing concern in America that police powers are already
too "heavy handed" and militaristic in dealing with average America.

To the men of America I ask you, how would you react if you came upon
an "officer" with your wife or daughter or mother handcuffed and bent
over the hood of a squad car because she was not wearing her
seatbelt? This is outrageous and reeks of a "POLICE STATE" mentality.
There WILL be trouble with this decision. "Joe Six-Pack" will come
across the "Missus" getting handcuffed and the pistol will be pulled!
I don't blame him.